Lynch v. Jackson
Decision Date | 11 November 1937 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 988 |
Parties | LYNCH v. JACKSON et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1937
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; D.C. Halstead, Judge.
Suit in equity by Mrs. G.E. Jackson and others against Mrs. M.A Lynch and others to sell lands for division of proceeds among joint owners. From a decree ordering the lands sold, the named respondent alone appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
O.S Lewis and Emmet S. Thigpen, both of Dothan, for appellant.
Martin & Jackson and Tompkins & Ramsey, all of Dothan, for appellees.
The bill sought partition of real property among cotenants by its sale.
A material part of the testimony was taken orally before the circuit court and judge rendering the final decree. It is supported by the intendments that prevail. Hodge v Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171.
The respective insistences are that the possession of the land by Mrs. Lynch, formerly Mrs. Espy, was in recognition of complainants' right, title, and interest therein; the contrary insistence being made that the long holding by Mrs. Espy was not merely permissive, but was open, notorious, and adverse to the interests of complainants and the other persons so interested. It is well stated by the trial judge that the character of the possession of Mrs. Lynch was the turning point in this decision. Did Mrs. Espy hold and enjoy the usufruct from the land as adverse holder or under her quarantine rights as widow?
It is recited in the decree as follows: ***"
From the decree ordering the lands sold, only Mrs. M.A. Lynch appeals; and the two respondents, Mrs. Fannie Escott and Frank C. Espy, took no appeal.
It is admitted that the decree is in error as to the respective interests of the joint tenants, and this court is asked to correct the decree in this respect.
In Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 200 Ala. 184, 75 So. 932, the authorities are collected to the effect that where the widow retains the use of the land of a deceased husband, she may so hold until dower is assigned without having to account for rents, income, and profits therefrom. In such case there is placed upon the owner of the fee the burden of having dower assigned. It is further declared that failure to have dower assigned, and permitting the widow to retain possession without more, does not deprive the owner of the fee in the land.
Appellant relies on Miller v. Vizzard Inv. Co., 195 Ala. 467, 70 So. 639, and other authorities now to be considered. In the Miller v. Vizzard Inv. Co. Case, supra, there was a lack of evidence that the possession held was permissive. Here there was evidence that Miss Espy personally notified the widow, Mrs. Lynch, that her use of the land was merely permissive. We think, as did the trial court, as we have indicated, that such fact and notice was corroborated. It is true that the trial judge did not hear Miss Espy give her evidence on this question, yet he did hear the testimony of Mrs. Lynch, who denied the testimony of Miss Espy as to showing that notice was given.
It is sufficient to note that the case of Shotts v. Carpenter et al., 232 Ala. 487, 168 So. 884, was not that of a tenant in common; and in Arendale et al. v. Washington et al., 213 Ala. 23, 104 So. 133, knowledge of adverse holding was brought home to the other cotenants. In Winsett v. Winsett, 203 Ala. 373, 83 So. 117, and in Palmer v. Sims et al., 176 Ala. 59, 57 So. 704, no such notice was chargeable to the cotenants, who challenged the adverse holding of cotenant in possession.
In Black et al. v. Black et al., 233 Ala. 425, 172 So. 275, it is observed: That is to say, in the last-cited case Black was a stranger to the title. Here Mrs. Lynch was a cotenant. In the Black Case there was no evidence of a permissive use, as was the tendency of evidence in the case at bar. In the Black Case the insistence was adverse possession and prescription under a deed regularly executed and recorded. Here Mrs. Lynch offered no such evidence of title or color of title. Lyons v. Taylor, 231 Ala. 600, 166 So. 15.
The foregoing will illustrate the recent holdings of this court that have application or nonapplication to the facts, as we have indicated. When the entire record is carefully examined we find that complainants' contention that Mrs. Lynch was permitted to remain in possession of the land and to use the proceeds therefrom in support and maintenance of herself as the widow and the infant children (Fannie Espy Escott, Franklin C. Espy, and Mary Elizabeth Espy) of Thomas F. Espy, deceased, from 1910 to the bringing of this suit, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bromberg v. First Nat. Bank
... ... that justice be done in the premises, notwithstanding ... confusion or conflict contained in answers. Lynch v ... Jackson, Ala.Sup., 177 So. 347; Southern Surety Co ... v. Mobile Nat. Bank, 223 Ala. 463, 137 So. 297, and ... Tatum v. Commercial Bank & ... ...
-
Tate v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Oxford
...and permitting the widow to retain possession without more, does not deprive the owner of the fee in the land. Lynch v. Jackson, 235 Ala. 90, 177 So. 347 (1937)."The right to quarantine allows the widow to "retain possession of the dwelling house where her husband most usually resided next ......
-
Swafford v. Brasher
...to cut off the rights of such other tenants in common without actual notice. Gilb v. O'Neill, supra; Palmer v. Sims, supra; Lynch v. Jackson, 235 Ala. 90, 177 So. 347. reference to what constitutes an ouster, such as will start the statute running in favor of one cotenant against the other,......
-
Marino v. Smith
...and permitting the widow to retain possession without more, does not deprive the owner of the fee in the land. Lynch v. Jackson, 235 Ala. 90, 177 So. 347 (1937). It has been recognized that a widow retaining possession by virtue of her quarantine rights may acquire title by adverse possessi......